|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:37 pm
Goldfish-Queen I don't agree with it.
It's an animals, and it has thoughts and free will of it's own. We shouldn't have to subject it to torture. And how do we know if it hurts the animal? We don't. And animals react differently to chemicals than humans. Why don't they test them on death row prisoners? It would show more accurate results, and they would be doing one thing to help humanity.
Just because humans think they are above animals, doesn't mean they are.
Testing on the animal is not the same as torturing the animal.
There are 3 types of research.
Pure, Applied, and Toxicology. People can't be used for most of these because they have an active mind and therefore if they knew what type of research they were getting into (or even if they didn't), they would screw the results. And I'm sure you have heard of the placebo effect? With animals, there's no chance of that happening.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:38 pm
Rockula self defence... irrelevant biggrin
...But aren't we using the animals to defend ourselves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:33 pm
Blooming in Evergreen Rockula self defence... irrelevant biggrin
...But aren't we using the animals to defend ourselves? self defence: actions taken by someone to prevent another someone from causing harm to one's self the animals were not hurting us, so its not self defence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:43 pm
Blooming in Evergreen RingoS Tonsils kuntrykid Blooming in Evergreen
You make it sound as if animals don't reap anything from animal testing.You do make a good point. Animals do reap from animal testing. Exactly test animals for animals, test humans for humans, i never said dont cure animals, i said dont kill animals for humans. (Im obviously Rockula on my mule rolleyes )
Not all testing animals die.
But what I meant was, in the process of saving humans, the animals themselves will be saved. Besides killing theyre hurting them too, animals do suffer. Cant they sacrifice one human(who they are killing anyways) to save humanity if it is that important? oh and maybe in the process while testing humans and saving humanity they can save more animals aswell..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:28 pm
So you're saying that a termite is as important as you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:14 am
lol two years later rolleyes
i think you already asked this, but sure why not, and if its not, well im not the one who can tell... newsflash, im not god =D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:36 pm
Are you for it or against it?
This includes both cosmetic and medicinal purposes.
I don't agree with it for cosmetic purposes, but that doesn't really matter to be cause I don't wear make up. But I do agree with it for medicinal purposes. Sure, there may be alternatives, but the take longer and cost more money so that's unfair to everyone who may benefit from it.
Animal testing is mutually beneficial. Through it, not only have we gotten to learn about human diseases, animals also have improved healthcare and a longer lifespan. Farm animals, household pets, wild species and endangered species are all benefiting from the research conducted through animals. There are vaccines for rabies, distemper, tetanus, parvo virus and numerous other illnesses in cats, dogs and countless other domesticated animals. Cats now have a treatment for Feline Leukemia. It's obvious that animal research benefits all living species and that we are all able to live longer, healthier, happier lives because of it.
Have you all been vacinated? Because of animal testing, we are safe from the measels, mumps, chickenpox, scarlet fever.. all sorts of nasty things. Now, some people might follow old PetA's motto...
"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
But I don't agree. People are the stewards of animals. It's our job to take care of them, and ourselves. If a rat dies so a person might have a higher chance of surviving cancer...isn't that worth it?
I've heard, again and again, that animal testing hurts animals.. that it's horrible and cruel. But riddle me this.. what purpose would abusing lab animals have? Animals that are in pain won't give accurate test results, and so the whole purpose of the test would be worthless. In fact, most of the testing done on animals is painless. Animals are given painkillers and medicine that take care of the side effects of most testing. And you wouldn't believe how many tests products have to go through in order to be able to be tested on animals. It's not as if people are going to just take a random chemical and test it on an animal. It'd be pointless.
Many animal rights' groups say that the alternatives to animal testing would be more efficient, and less expensive. But this isn't true. They campaign mainly for "invitro" testing, which is done on eggs and human cells. They also advocate the use of computer models. But tell me this.. how can a computer tell you how something will react? That is the whole point of a test.. we don't know. Therefore, we can't program a computer to give us results. And invitro testing is all good up to a certain point, but it can't be used for everything. And testing on animals is the most efficent way of testing. That means lower prices on medicine and medical treatments for us, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 6:51 am
Rockula lol two years later rolleyes i think you already asked this, but sure why not, and if its not, well im not the one who can tell... newsflash, im not god =D I can tell... But you are sentient! Oh, and the reason I haven't posted lately is because my mother is re-cooperating from a surgery and I haven't had as much time to get online lately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 9:02 am
kuntrykid Rockula lol two years later rolleyes i think you already asked this, but sure why not, and if its not, well im not the one who can tell... newsflash, im not god =D I can tell... But you are sentient! Oh, and the reason I haven't posted lately is because my mother is re-cooperating from a surgery and I haven't had as much time to get online lately. step on a dog's tail and he will cry , i thought we went through this already gonk This of going over and over on the same arguments its getting dull, soooo whatever you want, bye
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 10:55 pm
Rockula Blooming in Evergreen RingoS Tonsils kuntrykid Blooming in Evergreen
You make it sound as if animals don't reap anything from animal testing.You do make a good point. Animals do reap from animal testing. Exactly test animals for animals, test humans for humans, i never said dont cure animals, i said dont kill animals for humans. (Im obviously Rockula on my mule rolleyes )
Not all testing animals die.
But what I meant was, in the process of saving humans, the animals themselves will be saved. Besides killing theyre hurting them too, animals do suffer. Cant they sacrifice one human(who they are killing anyways) to save humanity if it is that important? oh and maybe in the process while testing humans and saving humanity they can save more animals aswell..
Animal testing isn't about sacrifice and killing people and animals, its research, which people can’t be involved in because people can screw up the results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:01 pm
Kitty1418
Are you for it or against it?
This includes both cosmetic and medicinal purposes.
I don't agree with it for cosmetic purposes, but that doesn't really matter to be cause I don't wear make up. But I do agree with it for medicinal purposes. Sure, there may be alternatives, but the take longer and cost more money so that's unfair to everyone who may benefit from it.
Animal testing is mutually beneficial. Through it, not only have we gotten to learn about human diseases, animals also have improved healthcare and a longer lifespan. Farm animals, household pets, wild species and endangered species are all benefiting from the research conducted through animals. There are vaccines for rabies, distemper, tetanus, parvo virus and numerous other illnesses in cats, dogs and countless other domesticated animals. Cats now have a treatment for Feline Leukemia. It's obvious that animal research benefits all living species and that we are all able to live longer, healthier, happier lives because of it.
Have you all been vacinated? Because of animal testing, we are safe from the measels, mumps, chickenpox, scarlet fever.. all sorts of nasty things. Now, some people might follow old PetA's motto...
"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
But I don't agree. People are the stewards of animals. It's our job to take care of them, and ourselves. If a rat dies so a person might have a higher chance of surviving cancer...isn't that worth it?
I've heard, again and again, that animal testing hurts animals.. that it's horrible and cruel. But riddle me this.. what purpose would abusing lab animals have? Animals that are in pain won't give accurate test results, and so the whole purpose of the test would be worthless. In fact, most of the testing done on animals is painless. Animals are given painkillers and medicine that take care of the side effects of most testing. And you wouldn't believe how many tests products have to go through in order to be able to be tested on animals. It's not as if people are going to just take a random chemical and test it on an animal. It'd be pointless.
Many animal rights' groups say that the alternatives to animal testing would be more efficient, and less expensive. But this isn't true. They campaign mainly for "invitro" testing, which is done on eggs and human cells. They also advocate the use of computer models. But tell me this.. how can a computer tell you how something will react? That is the whole point of a test.. we don't know. Therefore, we can't program a computer to give us results. And invitro testing is all good up to a certain point, but it can't be used for everything. And testing on animals is the most efficent way of testing. That means lower prices on medicine and medical treatments for us, too.
I agree with most of your points. ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:04 pm
Rockula kuntrykid Rockula lol two years later rolleyes i think you already asked this, but sure why not, and if its not, well im not the one who can tell... newsflash, im not god =D I can tell... But you are sentient! Oh, and the reason I haven't posted lately is because my mother is re-cooperating from a surgery and I haven't had as much time to get online lately. step on a dog's tail and he will cry , i thought we went through this already gonk This of going over and over on the same arguments its getting dull, soooo whatever you want, bye
Except for the fact that we have several arguments, and you only have one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:55 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:03 pm
 These little knights... I believe animal testing is perfectly fine.
One way I look at it is this:
Would you rather have an animal or a human being tested?
Humans are animals too.
Therefor we relate to many other animals.
Sometimes the tests can be cruel and painful, but I take more comfort in the fact it's being done to an animal and not a human being.
These tests, as Kitty stated, are to show us what would happen.
Computers only PREDICT what happens, not show us the true result.
Edit: And to go in further, we must consider human error when testing on humans.
It's been proven time and time again that when a man is told what MAY happen to him during a test, he's more incline to make it happen.
Take Mythbusters for example: They were testing for remedies for sea sickness.
Suspicious of their results, they gave their subjects vitamin pills but told them is market brand sea sickness pills.
One man still felt sick, but other claimed to feel better.
While animals ARE intelligent, they won't repeat such errors, even if you did tell them what you were doing them (mostly because they can't understand you).
Really, there's no excuse/argument against animal testing.
Only one I have seen so far has been beaten down over and over again.  ...will rock your world
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
